PDF Children S Rights Law in The Global Human Rights Landscape Isolation Inspiration Integration Eva Brems Ebook Full Chapter

Children s Rights Law in the Global
Human Rights Landscape Isolation

inspiration integration Eva Brems
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/children-s-rights-law-in-the-global-human-rights-lands
cape-isolation-inspiration-integration-eva-brems/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
International Human Rights Law Daniel Moeckli
https://textbookfull.com/product/international-human-rights-law-
daniel-moeckli/
The Idea of International Human Rights Law Steven

Wheatley
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-idea-of-international-human-
rights-law-steven-wheatley/
Human Rights in China A Social Practice in the Shadows

of Authoritarianism 1st Edition Eva Pils
https://textbookfull.com/product/human-rights-in-china-a-social-
practice-in-the-shadows-of-authoritarianism-1st-edition-eva-pils/
Reconciling Law and Morality in Human Rights Discourse:

Beyond the Habermasian Account of Human Rights 1st
Edition Willy Moka-Mubelo (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/reconciling-law-and-morality-in-
human-rights-discourse-beyond-the-habermasian-account-of-human-
rights-1st-edition-willy-moka-mubelo-auth/
Liberty intact human rights in English law 1st Edition
Tugendhat
https://textbookfull.com/product/liberty-intact-human-rights-in-
english-law-1st-edition-tugendhat/
The Prevention of Gross Human Rights Violations Under

International Human Rights Law 1st Edition Nienke Van
Der Have (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-prevention-of-gross-human-
rights-violations-under-international-human-rights-law-1st-
edition-nienke-van-der-have-auth/
Paradigms of international human rights law 1st Edition

Fellmeth
https://textbookfull.com/product/paradigms-of-international-
human-rights-law-1st-edition-fellmeth/
Regionalizing Global Human Rights Norms in Southeast

Asia Dwi Ardhanariswari Sundrijo
https://textbookfull.com/product/regionalizing-global-human-
rights-norms-in-southeast-asia-dwi-ardhanariswari-sundrijo/
Tracing the Roles of Soft Law in Human Rights 1st

Edition Stéphanie Lagoutte
https://textbookfull.com/product/tracing-the-roles-of-soft-law-
in-human-rights-1st-edition-stephanie-lagoutte/
Downloaded by [University of Idaho] at 11:25 07 July 2017
Children’s Rights Law in
the Global Human Rights
Landscape: Isolation,
Inspiration, Integration?
Children’s rights law is often studied and perceived in isolation from the broader
field of human rights law. This volume explores the inter-relationship between
children’s rights law and more general human rights law in order to see whether
elements from each could successfully inform the other. Children’s rights law has
a number of distinctive characteristics, such as the emphasis on the ‘best interests
of the child’, the use of general principles and the inclusion of ‘third parties’ (e.g.
parents and other carers) in treaty provisions. The first part of this book questions
whether these features could be a source of inspiration for general human rights
law. In Part II, the reverse question is asked: could children’s rights law draw
inspiration from developments in other branches of human rights law that
focus on other specific categories of rights holders, such as women, persons with
disabilities, indigenous peoples or older persons? Finally, the interaction between
children’s rights law and human rights law – and the potential for their isolation,
inspiration or integration – may be coloured or determined by the thematic
issue under consideration. Therefore, the third part of the book studies the
interplay between children’s rights law and human rights law in the context of
specific topics: intra-family relations, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or
questioning (LGBTQI) marginalisation, migration, the media, the environment
and transnational human rights obligations.
Eva Brems is professor at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University,

Belgium.
Ellen Desmet is assistant professor of migration law at the Law Faculty of Ghent
University, Belgium.
Wouter Vandenhole teaches human rights and holds the UNICEF Chair in
Children’s Rights – a joint venture of the University of Antwerp and UNICEF
Belgium – at the Faculty of Law of the University of Antwerp, Belgium.
Routledge Research in Human Rights Law
Available titles in this series include:
Resolving Conflicts between Human Rights

The Judge’s Dilemma
Stijn Smet
Human Rights Education and the Politics of Knowledge

Joanne Coysh
The Istanbul Convention, Domestic Violence and Human Rights

Ronagh J.A. McQuigg
Children’s Rights Law in the Global Human Rights Landscape

Isolation, inspiration, integration?
Edited by Eva Brems, Ellen Desmet and Wouter Vandenhole
The Protection of Vulnerable Groups under International Human

Rights Law
Ingrid Nifosi-Sutton
Forthcoming titles in this series include:
Freedom of Expression and Religious Hate Speech

You Can’t Say That!
Erica Howard
The Right to Food

From Sovereignty to Security
Kirsteen Shields
Business and Human Rights in Africa

History, Politics, Context and Emerging Trends
Uche Ewelukwa Ofodile
Children’s Rights Law
in the Global Human
Rights Landscape
Isolation, Inspiration, Integration?
Edited by
Eva Brems, Ellen Desmet and
Wouter Vandenhole
First published 2017
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2017 selection and editorial matter, Eva Brems, Ellen Desmet and
Wouter Vandenhole; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of the editors to be identified as the author of the editorial
material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted
in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Brems, Eva, editor. | Desmet, Ellen, editor. | Vandehole, Wouter,
editor.
Title: Children’s rights law in the global human rights landscape :
isolation, inspiration, integration? / edited by Eva Brems, Ellen Desmet,
and Wouter Vandehole.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon [UK]; New York : Routledge, 2017. |
Series: Routledge research in human rights law | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016056483 | ISBN 9781138639010 (hbk) |
ISBN 9781315637440 (ebk)
Subjects: LCSH: Children (International law) | Chidlren’s rights. |
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989 November 20) |
International law and human rights.
Classification: LCC K639. C483 2017 | DDC 341.4/8572—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016056483
ISBN: 9781138639010 (hbk)

ISBN: 9781315637440 (ebk)
Typeset in Galliard
by Keystroke, Neville Lodge, Tettenhall, Wolverhampton
Contents
Notes on Contributors ix
Children’s rights law and human rights law:

analysing present and possible future
interactions 1
EVA BREMS, ELLEN DESMET AND WOUTER VANDENHOLE
PART I
The broader relevance of features of children’s
rights law 19
1 Distinctive characteristics of children’s human rights law 21

WOUTER VANDENHOLE
2 The broader relevance of features of children’s rights law:

the ‘best interests of the child’ principle 37
HELEN STALFORD
3 The four general principles of the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child: the potential
value of the approach in other areas of human rights law 52
LAURA LUNDY AND BRONAGH BYRNE
4 The inclusion of ‘third parties’: the status of parenthood

in the Convention on the Rights of the Child 71
ROBERTA RUGGIERO, DIANA VOLONAKIS AND KARL HANSON
vi Children’s rights in human rights law
PART II
Inspiration for children’s rights from categorical
human rights 91
5 Lessons for children’s rights from women’s rights?

Emancipation rights as a distinct category of human rights 93
EVA BREMS
6 Lessons for children’s rights from disability rights? 109

RALPH SANDLAND
7 Inspiration for children’s rights from indigenous

peoples’ rights 129
ELLEN DESMET
8 What young and old can learn from each other: cross-
fertilisation between existing human rights law for
children and developing human rights law for older persons 146
ANN-KATRIN HABBIG, ALEXANDER HOEFMANS AND PAUL DE HERT
PART III
The interplay between children’s rights law and human
rights law in thematic areas 171
9 Towards an integrated approach to intra-family relations

under the CRC and CEDAW: some reflections 173
TITIA LOENEN
10 Children’s rights and LGBTI persons’ rights: some

thoughts on their ‘integration’ 192
IVANA ISAILOVIC
11 Undocumented migration: integrating the children’s

rights concept of nuanced vulnerability in human
rights law 210
JULIE RYNGAERT AND WOUTER VANDENHOLE
12 Children’s rights and media: imperfect but inspirational 231

EVA LIEVENS
Contents vii
13 Out of isolation: a claim for explicit attention for children
in the movement towards recognition of an environmental
right 251
DANIELLE VAN KALMTHOUT
14 Children’s rights in business and human rights: from the

sidelines to the centre field? 273
GAMZE ERDEM TÜRKELLİ
Index 302
Notes on contributors
Eva Brems is senior full professor at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent
University. She teaches Advanced Study of Human Rights, Law and Gender
(in Dutch) and Islam and the Law (in Dutch). The research of Professor Brems
and her team covers numerous topics in domestic, international as well as
comparative human rights law. She is particularly interested in issues relating
to justiciability of human rights and legal reasoning concerning human rights,
as well as in dealing with diversity and gender. Professor Brems is the general
coordinator of the Interuniversity Attraction Pole ‘The Global Challenge of
Human Rights Integration: Towards a Users’ Perspective’.
Dr Bronagh Byrne is a lecturer in Social Policy at Queen’s University Belfast.

She is co-director of the Centre for Children’s Rights and co-chair of the
University’s Disability Research Network. Bronagh has expertise in inter-
national human rights law with a particular focus on the application of
international human rights standards to local practice in relation to children’s
rights and disability rights. She has completed a series of projects examining
the legal implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child (UNCRC) both nationally and internationally. Her most recent
publications have included an examination of the right to inclusive education
in international law, the rights of children and young people with disabilities
and children’s rights in policy and practice.
Paul De Hert is full-time professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB),

associate professor at Tilburg University and director of the Fundamental
Rights and Constitutionalism Research Group (FRC) at VUB. After having
written extensively on defence rights and the right to privacy, De Hert now
writes on a broader range of topics including elderly rights, patient rights and
global criminal law. Paul De Hert is co-editor in chief of the Supranational
Criminal Law Series (Intersentia) and the New Journal of European Criminal
Law (Intersentia). He is editor in chief of the Flemish human rights journal
Tijdschrift voor Mensenrechten.
Ellen Desmet is assistant professor of migration law at the Law Faculty of Ghent
University. She teaches migration law, coordinates the migration law component
x Children’s rights in human rights law
of the Human Rights and Migration Law Clinic and co-lectures legal
anthropology. Until September 2016, she was the project manager of the
Interuniversity Attraction Pole ‘The Global Challenge of Human Rights
Integration: Towards a Users’ Perspective’ at Ghent University, and a senior
researcher at the Law and Development Research Group of the University of
Antwerp. She has a background in human rights law (with a focus on children’s
rights law and indigenous peoples’ rights law) and legal anthropology; her
current research concentrates on asylum and migration law and policy.
Gamze Erdem Türkelli is a PhD candidate at the University of Antwerp Law
Research School and a member of the Law and Development Research Group.
Her doctoral research is on the children’s rights obligations of corporate

and corporate-like international actors. She received her Bachelor’s degree
in political science and international relations from Boğaziçi University
(Istanbul, Turkey) summa cum laude and holds Master’s degrees from the
University of Paris 1 – Pantheon Sorbonne (France) and from Yale University
(US), where she was a Fulbright Fellow. Her research interests include
children’s rights, transnational human rights obligations and non-state actors
in international law.
Ann-Katrin Habbig is a member of the interdisciplinary research group
Gerontopole Brussels at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), which is
conducting research on frailty in the oldest old. Within this project she
is focusing on the rights of older persons and on how the capability approach
of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum can be applied to older persons. She is
also a member of the Research Group Fundamental Rights & Constitutionalism
(FRC) at the VUB. Furthermore, she is teaching undergraduate students in
European law, international law and human rights.
Karl Hanson is professor in public law and deputy director of the Centre for
Children’s Rights Studies at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, where
he teaches in the Master interdisciplinaire en droits de l’enfant (MIDE); he is
also the programme director of the Master of Advanced Studies in Children’s
Rights (MCR). His publications and main research interests are in the field of
inter-disciplinary children’s rights studies and include international children’s
rights advocacy, child labour and working children, juvenile justice and
independent national children’s rights institutions. He is an editor of the
journal Childhood and chairs the Directive Committee of the Children’s Rights
European Academic Network (CREAN).
Alexander Hoefmans joined the Belgian Ministry of Justice in 2004 as a Human
Rights Adviser and, in that capacity, he dealt primarily with the negotiation of
international human rights treaties or instruments, their implementation at
national level as well as the reporting procedures before the UN and Council
of Europe committees. He was national liaison officer to the European
Commission against Racism and Intolerance of the Council of Europe as well
as to the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union. He was also
Notes on Contributors xi
co-agent of the Belgian Government to the European Court of Human Rights
and dealt in this capacity with the Belgian case law before the European Court.
He also has extensive experience in setting up national independent committees
in the field of human rights (children’s rights, prevention of torture, national
human rights commission). In 2010 he presided over the Working Group on
Fundamental Rights of the Council of Ministers during the Belgian EU
Presidency preparing, among others, the EU’s position in the negotiations on
the EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. He was also
part of the Presidency team that concluded the negotiations on the ratification
of the UN CRPD by the EU. From 2012 to 2014 he was seconded first to the
Cabinet of the Belgian Minister of Justice as adviser on human rights,
trafficking, privacy, hate crime and non-discrimination issues and subsequently

to DG JUST of the European Commission as legal and policy officer in the
unit responsible for fundamental rights and rights of the child. Currently, he
is head of the unit data protection and fundamental rights at the Belgian
Ministry of Justice.
Ivana Isailovic is the Emile Noel fellow at New York University (NYU) School
of Law. Her research explores the intersections between transnational law and
identity and exclusion. Prior to joining NYU she was the Boulton teaching
fellow at McGill University Faculty of Law. She received her PhD from Sciences
Po Paris and worked as a post-doctoral fellow within ‘The Global Challenge
of Human Rights Integration’ research network coordinated by Professor
Eva Brems.
Eva Lievens is Assistant Professor of Law & Technology at the Law Faculty of
Ghent University and a member of the Human Rights Centre. From 2003
until 2015, she was a member of the KU Leuven Centre for IT and IP Law
(CiTiP) (previously the Interdisciplinary Centre for Law & ICT). Eva obtained
her law degree at Ghent University in 2002 and a Master’s degree in
transnational communications and global media at Goldsmiths, University of
London in 2003. A recurrent focus in her research relates to human and
children’s rights in the ICT and media sector and the use of alternative
regulatory instruments, such as self- and co-regulation. Eva is a member of
the Chamber for impartiality and the protection of minors of the Flemish
Regulator for the Media and the Belgian Film Evaluation Committee. She is
the associate editor for the International Encyclopaedia of Laws: Media Law
(with Prof Peggy Valcke), a member of the editorial committee of Auteurs &
Media (Larcier) and a contributor for Belgium for the European Audiovisual
Observatory’s IRIS newsletter.
Prof Dr M L P (Titia) Loenen is professor of human rights and diversity

at Leiden University. She holds degrees in history and law from the same
university. Her research covers human rights and equality issues in an
international and comparative perspective. Recent work includes research on
the interaction and overlap between European and international human rights
xii Children’s rights in human rights law
protection mechanisms and on (potential) tensions between gender equality
and religious freedom. She is also programme director of the advanced LLM
European and international human rights law at Leiden Law School.
Professor Laura Lundy is a professor of education law and children’s rights and
the co-director of the Centre for Children’s Rights at Queen’s University
Belfast, Northern Ireland (www.qub.ac.uk/ccr). Her expertise is in law and
children’s rights, with a particular focus on children’s education rights,
the right to participate in decision-making and the implementation of the
UNCRC.
Roberta Ruggiero holds an MA in law, an MA in human rights and demo-
cratisation, and a PhD in promotion and protection of children’s rights. She

is a senior research and teaching associate at the University of Geneva’s
Centre for Children’s Rights Studies. She was formerly scientific coordinator
of the European Network of National Observatories on Childhood
(ChildONEurope), Istituto degli Innocenti (2008–2013), senior lecturer at
the University of Padua, Italy, and external professor on children’s rights at the
University of Molise, Italy. She has also worked as researcher at the IOM Europe
Office and at UNICEF–Innocenti Research Office. Her research interests and
publications include children’s rights in the EU framework of law and policy,
independent national human rights institution for children, implementation of
children’s rights and comparative childhood governmental policies.
Julie Ryngaert is a policy adviser at the Flemish Office of the Children’s Rights
Commissioner. She studied law at KU Leuven and human rights at the
Université Saint-Louis-Bruxelles. In 2015, she obtained her doctoral degree
at the Law Faculty of the University of Antwerp. Her PhD studies the
interaction between children’s rights and human rights, with a particular
emphasis on migration.
Ralph Sandland was educated at the University of Kent and Trinity Hall,
Cambridge before taking up a lecturing post in the School of Law, University
of Nottingham in 1990. He is currently Professor of Law and Difference in
the School. Ralph teaches in the areas of family law, children’s rights and health
care law. His research interests span these areas, as well as jurisprudence,
feminist theory and post-modern philosophy. The fourth edition of his leading
textbook Mental Health Law: Policy and Practice (with Peter Bartlett) was
published by OUP in 2013.
Helen Stalford is Professor of Law at the University of Liverpool, England. She
is founding director of the European Children’s Rights Unit and has written
and published extensively on children’s rights in a European context. She has
a particular interest in developing methods that engage children as research
partners, that explore and enhance children’s understanding and experiences
of the law and that seek to evaluate the impact of legal processes on children’s
lives.
Notes on Contributors xiii
Danielle Van Kalmthout is a PhD research fellow at the Human Rights Centre
at Ghent University. She holds a Master’s in international and European law
(Leiden University) and a Master’s in European studies (University Robert
Schuman, Strasbourg). Besides her research, she works at the Policy Research
Department of the Flemish League of Families, where she is responsible for
sustainable development and environment policies. Her main focus is on
environmental and health issues, with a particular focus on vulnerable groups.
She also coordinates the interdisciplinary network Childproof. Before, she
worked for 12 years for different European networks in the field of environ-
mental affairs and renewable energy policy. Her last position was director at
RREUSE vzw (Reuse and Recycling Social Enterprises in the European
Union). Her PhD research focuses on ‘Environmental rights and the position
of children in international environmental law: a children’s rights perspective’.
In her research, she combines her experience in the domain of law, advocacy
work on EU environmental policy and the issue of environment and health
focused on children.
Wouter Vandenhole specialises in transnational human rights obligations and
economic, social and cultural rights. He holds the chair in human rights
and the UNICEF chair in children’s rights – a joint venture of the University
of Antwerp and UNICEF Belgium – at the faculty of law of the University of
Antwerp since 2007. He is the research director of the Law and Development
Research Group. Vandenhole serves on the editorial board of several
international journals, among which are the Journal of Human Rights Practice
and Human Rights and International Legal Discourse. He has taken up
management functions in European research and teaching networks. He is the
lead convenor of an international programme on sustainable development and
human rights law (SUSTLAW). See www.uantwerp.be/wouter-vandenhole.
Diana Volonakis holds a BA in history from the University of Lausanne, an MA
in interdisciplinary children’s rights studies from the University Institute Kurt
Bösch (Sion) and is currently researching her PhD thesis in the field of
educational sciences at the University of Geneva. Her doctoral thesis is a
transnational comparative study of youth training and labour in the 19th
century watchmaking industry in the USA and Switzerland. Her main research
interests include childhood studies, child and youth labour, the history of
childhoods and youths, the history of vocational training and school to work
transitions.
Children’s rights law and human
rights law: analysing present and
possible future interactions
Eva Brems, Ellen Desmet and Wouter Vandenhole
Introduction
This volume explores whether and how children’s human rights law and other
branches of international human rights law can inspire and enrich one another.
Children’s rights law is often perceived and studied in isolation from the broader
field of human rights law. This book examines to what extent this results in lost
opportunities for children’s rights law, as well as for general human rights law.
Children’s rights law has a number of allegedly distinctive characteristics, such
as the use of general principles, the emphasis on the ‘best interests of the child’
and the inclusion of ‘third parties’ (e.g. parents) in the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The question arises whether these features
could be a source of inspiration for general human rights law or other categorical
branches of human rights law.
This is explored in the first part of the volume. The second part reverses the
question: could children’s rights law draw inspiration from developments in other
branches of human rights law that focus on specific categories of rights holders,
such as women, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples or older persons?
Finally, the interaction between children’s rights law and human rights law – and
the potential for isolation, inspiration or integration – may be coloured or
determined by the thematic issue under consideration. Therefore, the third part
of the book studies the interplay between children’s rights law and human rights
law in the context of specific topics: intra-family relations, LGBTI marginalisation,
undocumented migration, the media, the right to a healthy environment and
human rights obligations of business.
For the purposes of this volume, the editors understand the term ‘integration’
to refer to a deliberate effort from one branch of international human rights
law to incorporate concepts, methods or practices that originate from another
branch of international human rights law. The term ‘inspiration’ refers to cases in
which direct incorporation of concepts or practices from another branch of inter-
national human rights law is not considered appropriate, but where some ideas or
dynamics in one branch have nevertheless influenced or could influence ideas
or dynamics in another branch. Another way of looking at the difference between
‘integration’ and ‘inspiration’ is that it is a matter of degree: ‘inspiration’ indicates
light or indirect forms of influence, whereas ‘integration’ is used for more
2 Children’s rights in human rights law
far-reaching and/or more direct forms of influence. In this sense, ‘integration’
may come down in certain cases to an ‘uncritical embrace’, whereas inspiration may
suggest a more critical, deliberated and possibly selective interaction. Finally, the
term ‘isolation’ is used to indicate a (deliberate or not) disregard of what is going
on in other branches of international human rights law.
Inspiring other human rights regimes

The first part of the book examines the possible wider relevance of the most salient
characteristic features of children’s rights law, for both general human rights law
and other categorical branches of human rights law. In a first, umbrella chapter,
Vandenhole identifies and examines five allegedly distinctive characteristics of the

CRC: (i) the indivisibility of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights;
(ii) the inclusion of new substantive norms and elements, particularly as regards
non-discrimination, the right to life, the concept of evolving capacities, and the
right to education; (iii) the ‘best interests of the child’ concept; (iv) the use of
general principles; and (v) the incorporation of ‘third parties’ as duty bearers in
addition to the domestic state. He shows, among other aspects, that some of these
features have either never been (e.g. indivisibility) or are no longer (e.g. general
principles) unique to children’s rights law.
The following chapters discuss three of these characteristics – arguably those
that have been most widely invoked and discussed in children’s rights practice and
scholarship – in more depth: the best interests of the child (Stalford), the use of
general principles (Lundy and Byrne) and the inclusion of third parties in the CRC
(Ruggiero, Volonakis and Hanson). The authors analyse the historical and legal
basis of these features, their current use in children’s rights law and beyond, and
their potential future contribution to general human rights law and other specific
areas of human rights law. The concept of ‘third parties’ is approached differently
in the two chapters: whereas Ruggiero and others focus their analysis on parents
as third parties in the CRC, Vandenhole looks more broadly into non-state actors
and extraterritorial obligations.
The overall assessment of the possible added value of these three features for
other domains of human rights law runs parallel between the four authors.
No calls for a direct integration or transplant of one or more of the features in
other areas of human rights law are formulated. The potential for fruitful
inspiration is appraised differently for each of the characteristics. Most reluctance
is expressed as regards using the best interests principle with respect to adult rights
holders. Vandenhole and Stalford caution against ‘any naïve transplant’ and
‘extending the best interests too readily to other decision-making contexts’
respectively. The relevance of general principles for other branches of human
rights law is more positively assessed, yet also in a qualified way, as contributors
point to the weak legal and moral basis of general principles in children’s rights
law (Vandenhole), and propose a set of criteria that could guide the identification
and use of such principles (Lundy and Byrne). Finally, the inclusion of third parties
as duty holders is evaluated as holding most promise for influencing other branches
Present and possible future interactions 3
of human rights law, a conclusion that is supported both by an analysis of the
rights, duties and responsibilities of parents in the CRC (Ruggiero and others)
and by an examination of the questions surrounding non-state actors’ and
extraterritorial human rights obligations (Vandenhole).
Two categorical human rights regimes are explicitly mentioned as possible
candidates to be ‘inspired’ by children’s rights law: the rights of persons
with disabilities and the emerging regime on the rights of older persons. The
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has already drawn
inspiration from children’s rights law, namely by codifying a list of general
principles in its Article 3 (as discussed by both Lundy and Byrne, and Vandenhole).
In the view of Lundy and Byrne, the principles in the CRPD are too numerous
(eight) – ‘so all-encompassing that they become dilutionary’ – which risks

impeding their effective functioning. They prefer the CRC Committee’s approach,
where the more limited number of principles (four) allows ‘for a substantive and
focused body of work to develop over time’ – an approach that also better fits
the reality of limited resources of the UN treaty bodies.
Forward-looking, Ruggiero and others suggest that disability rights law could
learn lessons from children’s rights law when developing its approach to third
parties, limited in the CRPD to a reference to ‘families and caregivers’ as an
additional target group of state measures to prevent exploitation, violence and
abuse, next to persons with disabilities themselves (Article 16(2)). In order to
conceptualise the legal position of these families and carers, the authors propose
that the concept of ‘responsibilities’ might offer a useful point of departure,
influenced by the way ‘parental responsibilities’ have become understood in
children’s rights law as ‘limited and functional rights aimed at the fulfilment of
the rights of the child’.
The older persons’ rights regime could, in their view, equally benefit from this
concept of ‘responsibilities’, if third parties are included in its legal framework.
The rights of older persons are also mentioned by Vandenhole as an instance
where developing a set of general principles could be usefully envisaged.1 Stalford
does not single out particular categorical regimes of human rights as possible
destinations of inspiration, and instead discusses the possible application of ‘best
interests’ in relation to adult human rights in general. She does describe, however,
how the concept has been used (and abused) ‘in a clinical health care context for
adults deemed to lack capacity to make decisions for themselves’.
The remainder of this section succinctly reviews the arguments put forward by
the authors in favour of and against a broader (adapted) use of best interests,
general principles and the inclusion of third parties.
Best interests
Stalford and Vandenhole both note that applying best interests in respect of other
so-called vulnerable groups of rights holders seems appealing at first sight.
Nevertheless, they warn against too ready an appropriation of this concept in adult
human rights contexts, on the basis of various arguments. Both authors refer to
the already opaque and indeterminate meaning of the concept in children’s rights
law, which leads to inconsistent and even opposing outcomes – something which
would risk being exacerbated if best interests were broadened towards other
human rights domains. In addition, Stalford emphasises the child-specificity of
the concept, in three ways: it serves to make children’s interests visible in an adult-
dominated world; it offers a way to address possible clashes between interests of
adults and the interests of the child; and – from a utilitarian perspective – paying
attention to the child’s best interests enhances general societal welfare. This
conceptualisation of best interests makes it difficult, she argues, to extend its
application to the realm of adult rights holders. Such an extension could lead,
in the words of Parker, to ‘an artificial and sterile universalism’, dissolving the
distinctiveness of the concept. Moreover, Stalford cautions that broadening

the use of best interests could undermine the concept’s original objective, of
protecting children’s welfare. Such extension also risks ‘entrenching a predomi-
nantly paternalistic model of best interests from which, for many years now,
activists have been trying to extricate children’s rights’.
Finally, Vandenhole and Stalford seem to differ in their view of the weight
to be given to the best interests of the child (as prevailing or as (only) carrying
greater weight in a balancing exercise). Whereas Vandenhole points to a lack of
clarity on this issue, for instance in the jurisprudence of the European Court
of Human Rights (ECtHR), for Stalford it is clear that best interests do not imply
a trump card for the interests of the child, but that they accommodate the rights
of adults. Albeit on the basis of a somewhat different argumentation (unclear
weight versus inherent consideration of adult rights), the conclusion of the two
authors is similar, namely that this argumentation provides another reason why
transposing best interests to other human rights regimes does not seem desirable.
General principles
Tracing the history of the identification of the general principles by the CRC
Committee, Lundy and Byrne disclose the difficulty of finding a logical explanation
of why precisely Articles 2, 3, 6 and 12 CRC were elevated to the status of general
principles. Vandenhole also points to the weak legal and theoretical grounding of
the principles, and the fact that the principles of non-discrimination and
participation are not child-specific. Notwithstanding their dubious origin, Lundy
and Byrne show how the general principles have been predominant in children’s
rights implementation efforts by state parties and other duty bearers, in advocacy
by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society, and in academic
scholarship. Although the general principles thus seem to have contributed to an
enhanced understanding and acceptance of the CRC, the authors point out that
the key role attached to the general principles may also have led to reduced
attention for other substantive treaty provisions.
To assess the added value of the concept of general principles, Lundy and Byrne
then proceed to investigate other human rights treaties, adopted prior to and after
the CRC. Although they identify provisions in the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),2 as well as in the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(ICERD) that could serve as general principles, they also wonder ‘what if anything
has been lost in their absence’. For it can be argued that the lack of general
principles has not considerably impacted the implementation of both treaties. On
the other hand, as already indicated above, the actual inclusion of general principles
in the CRPD does not seem to make a substantial contribution to the convention’s
implementation either. In their conclusion, Lundy and Byrne formulate some
criteria that could guide the identification of convention-specific general principles,
including the criterion that the principle has a ‘clear basis that enables [it] to apply
across the other substantive provisions of the Convention and to do so in a way
that enhances implementation’, and the criterion that the principle ‘addresses a
barrier to the realisation and/or a route to fulfilment of the rights of the protected
groups and individuals’. Moreover, they submit that the ‘sum of the principles
must . . . be greater than the parts’. Lundy and Byrne and Vandenhole thus concur
that, when carefully selected and well grounded, general principles are an interesting
feature of children’s rights law that could inspire other human rights fields.
Inclusion of third parties

A final distinctive characteristic of the CRC is that it breaks through the traditional
binary relationship in human rights law of individual rights holders versus the
state, by introducing ‘third parties’ – more specifically parents and carers – as
holding ‘rights, duties and responsibilities’. On the basis of their detailed analysis
of the status of parenthood in the CRC, Ruggiero and others identify some
advantages and risks of including third parties in other human rights regimes. Two
arguments plead against such inclusion. Firstly, bringing in third parties may lead
to controversy and polarisation, as the authors illustrate with their account of the
dichotomous nature of the relationship between parental rights and children’s
rights in the United States. Such ‘dichotomous vision consistently downplays the
contentious nature of the relationship between the family and the State’. Secondly,
it has been argued that the triangular relationship in the CRC has led to obscuring
the legal obligations of states parties as regards the rights of the child. Critics
of the campaign against corporal punishment have argued that this campaign
allowed states to hide their direct obligations to combat structural economic
inequalities, by shifting the responsibility onto parents. On the other hand,
Rugierro and others suggest that other human rights regimes – in particular the
rights of persons with disabilities and the rights of older persons – could draw
inspiration from the ‘conciliatory perspective’ as adopted in the CRC, ‘which
prescribes that a balance needs to be made between the rights of different actors
involved by distributing responsibilities, duties and rights among parents/
caretakers and the State towards the promotion and realisation of an abstract
public good, i.e. the child’s well-being’.
Vandenhole draws other, yet complementary conclusions from the inclusion of
third parties in the CRC. In his view, the reference to parents in the CRC may
contribute to ‘opening up the duty-bearer side of human rights law, in order
to include other actors than the state’. He pleads for a more consistent use of
terminology, however, to indicate the legally binding nature of a certain norm,
and warns that the relationship between the obligations and responsibilities of
the various actors should be further clarified. Secondly, the multiple references
in the CRC to international assistance and cooperation indicate that the CRC
goes beyond the domestic state as the only statist duty-holder. As regards the
conceptualisation of the responsibilities and obligations of non-state actors as well
as of extraterritorial obligations of the domestic state, Vandenhole regrets,
however, that the CRC Committee has not yet fully developed this potential.
He refers to the work of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR) as a possible source of inspiration for children’s rights law in this respect.
The CESCR is not the only human rights treaty body from which children’s rights
could learn, however, as is explored in the second part.
Learning from other categorical human rights regimes

The chapters in Part II look into other categorical human rights regimes –
women’s rights, rights of persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples’ rights and
rights of older persons, in order to examine how these regimes may inspire the
human rights of children (and vice versa).
The authors were asked to have their chapters guided by two sets of questions:
the first more analytical; the second more normative:
(i) What are distinctive characteristics of the human rights protection of the
category of rights holders under consideration? What are best practices? What
are pitfalls to be avoided?
(ii) Which general lessons may be drawn from these (sub)disciplines about the
protection of the human rights of a specific group? Which aspects may inspire
the development of children’s rights law specifically?
In the course of this exercise, it became clear that challenges may be common
to the categorical regime under scrutiny and children’s human rights (that is in
particular the case with regard to rights of indigenous peoples), or that children’s
rights may be a more prominent source of inspiration for other categorical regimes
(under construction), as the experience with the rights of older persons seems
to suggest.
In what follows, we will look into the most salient distinctive characteristics of
each of the three categorical human rights regimes under scrutiny, and draw some
inspirational conclusions for children’s rights law.
A preliminary caveat is in order, however. The distinctiveness of categorical
human rights regimes for women, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples
and older persons must be put into perspective: as Brems points out, all are
considered as vulnerable groups and all face the challenge of balancing protection
with emancipation or independence. Moreover, intersectionality rather than a
particular unique status really seems to matter in practice. So while some of the
categorical human rights regimes may have unique characteristics, Brems submits
in her chapter on women’s rights that they are all emancipation rights that address
similar challenges. What unites emancipation rights is that they strongly matter in
horizontal relations and require cultural change. The realisation of such a ‘cultural’
paradigm shift seems most challenging where children are concerned: other
categories of so-called vulnerable persons demand that they are not treated like
children, hence reinforcing the stereotypes of vulnerability and incapacity that
tend to dominate in discourse on children.3 An interesting avenue for further
research on emancipation rights may be the area of work. Whereas the right to
work (in dignity) has made quite some leeway with regard to women, persons
with disabilities and older persons, developments with regard to children are
going in the opposite direction of a ban on all child labour, rather than of the
recognition of the right to work in dignity. Indigenous peoples’ rights lend
support to defining childhood not only in terms of biological age, and in this way
possibly also to the recognition of children of a right to work in dignity.
Women’s rights together with indigenous peoples’ rights seem the most
different regimes among these emancipation rights. The commonalities of
children’s rights, rights of persons with disabilities and rights of older persons
indeed stand out in the analysis of these respective regimes: for example, for all
three, the debate on capacity rages on, whereas with regard to women’s rights and
indigenous peoples’ rights, the capacity debate seems over. Children’s rights,
rights of persons with disabilities and rights of older persons face a fluid delineation
of the category they are covering. Admittedly, the latter characterises indigenous
peoples’ rights as well, whereas it is very clear who are considered ‘women’.4
Brems points out: ‘The emancipatory challenge of children’s rights lies in making
people see not only children’s inherent vulnerability, but also their inherent capacity
for autonomy, and the gradual development of that capacity. In that sense,
children’s rights as emancipation rights are both similar to and different from
women’s rights as emancipation rights’ (see Chapter 5; emphasis in original).
Let us now turn to some of the most salient particularities in comparison to
children’s rights, of each of the categorical regimes under scrutiny.
Women’s rights
The women’s rights regime may well be the area where the problematic nature of
protection dynamics has been most clearly exposed and addressed. As Brems
points out, the ‘emphasis on vulnerability and protection [is seen] as an expression
of paternalism that reinforces gendered stereotypes and that contributes to
denying women equal opportunities’ (see Chapter 5). In the struggle for realising
women’s rights as human rights, the emphasis is much more on empowerment
and autonomy, and hardly on vulnerability. Protective measures for children have
not been delegitimised to the same extent; on the contrary, the very success
of children’s rights seems to be grounded in the generalised perception of
children as vulnerable and the widespread support for maximum protection
of children. So, in challenging this myopic emphasis on children’s autonomy,
children’s rights may benefit from women’s rights. The need to bring about
cultural change to address stereotypes or prejudices means that action has also to
be taken in horizontal relations. Brems believes that this is the key learning point
for children’s rights: cultural perceptions of and practices towards children need
to be denormalised, which necessitates the inclusion of a specific provision on the
state’s obligation to work for cultural change similar to the one in Article 5(a)
CEDAW. Such a provision should function as a self-standing obligation, but also
as an additional general principle that guides the interpretation of all CRC
provisions. A cue could be taken from the work on harmful cultural practices, but
efforts should extend far beyond that set of cultural practices.
Rights of persons with disabilities

While acknowledging that in a pessimistic reading any innovative aspect of the
CRPD may be repudiated at the general level and in the particular context of
the rights of children (with disabilities), Sandland mainly emphasises the major
shift in the CRPD’s underpinning model or paradigm. The CRPD is premised
on a holistic social model of disability. The shift to a social model of disability
(whereby disability is not seen as an inherent deficiency, but rather as the result
of the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and
environmental barriers – see the preamble to the CRPD) echoes very much the
need for cultural change as argued by Brems. But both authors (and possibly both
fields) disagree on the extent to which developments in their own field could or
should be paralleled in children’s rights. Brems emphasises the persistent difference
between women’s rights and children’s rights. She argues that ‘the majority
of children have a capacity for autonomy that is significantly lower than that of
adults’, and that ‘[t]aking children’s capacity for autonomy seriously also means
recognising the limits of that capacity’. The optimal balance between protection
rights and autonomy rights will therefore differ for women and children.
In disability law, the role that the concept of ‘capacity’, and third-party decision-
making in the ‘best interests’ of persons found to ‘lack’ capacity used to play, may
be argued to have been replaced. Through the notion of supported decision-
making, the assumption now prevails that capacity to make one’s own decisions
is always attainable, if the person with disability is given the necessary assistance.
Sandland submits that the rights of persons with disabilities raise ‘questions
regarding the continued viability of an essentialist, status-based, non-socialised,
construction of children and their rights lack of any comparable “social model
of childhood”’, and invites to ponder about the effects of a ‘social model of
childhood’. For one, such a social model of childhood would challenge ‘the
continued desirability of a role of ‘capacity’ and ‘best interests’ as mechanisms for
making decisions in relation to children’ (see Chapter 6). In other words, the
CRPD raises the questions of whether: (i) it is not now time to shift from a status-
based to a functionality-based understanding of the limitations that simply being
a ‘child’ as a matter of legal status places on a young person in terms of their
abilities to make decisions for themselves and (ii) there should be, if not an
abandonment of the best interests principle, then at least the severance of that
principle from a substituted judgement framework for those children found to
have functional capacity and its attachment instead to a supported decision-
making model (see Chapter 6).
The CRPD also adopts a holistic approach to rights, which entails the
undermining of traditional divisions within orthodox human rights discourse
between types of rights (in particular civil and political versus economic, social
and cultural rights). The typology impacts the general obligation incumbent on
states: the former are to be realised immediately, the latter only progressively
subject to the availability of resources. In Sandland’s view, the CRPD constructs
‘civil and political rights as being interwoven with economic, social and cultural
rights’, and thereby ‘understands the legal subject as being interdependent and
relational’: ‘we all need effective economic, social and cultural rights if we are truly
to be able to exercise our civil or political rights’. This approach ‘undermines the
liberal legal subject, seen in political and civil rights terms as being independent,
isolated and autonomous’ (see Chapter 6; emphasis in the original). Although this
comprehensiveness, as it has been called in children’s rights literature, has also
been identified as characteristic of children’s rights, the CRPD seems to push it
to a higher level, and children’s rights may learn from this.
Finally, Sandland identifies some new rights, and the extension and
reconfiguration of existing rights for children (with disabilities): e.g. the evolving
capacities of the child and the right to participate effectively in society may have
been elevated to general principles; the right to physical and mental integrity is
explicitly recognised and the right to life better protected; and the right to physical
and mental integrity may provide leverage for access to all spaces open to the
public, including private spaces.
Indigenous peoples’ rights

Desmet identifies three areas in which children’s rights may learn from indigenous
peoples’ rights: space for flexibility in the definition of the group; the consequences
of romanticised constructions; and interpretative guidance for participation and
consent.
The field of indigenous peoples’ rights uses flexible conceptions of indigenous
peoples, with self-identification as a central element. The CRC, on the other hand,
employs a static definition of children. However, children grow up in very diverse
geographical, cultural and socio-economic contexts. A general upper age limit at
18 is Eurocentric, and may negatively affect certain rights of children, such as
a right to work in dignity. Desmet therefore pleads for a multi-dimensional
understanding of children, which does not exclusively focus on chronological age
but also takes into account self-identification as well as psychological and
contextual factors.
Secondly, indigenous peoples and children may be said to have been constructed
in a similar way, from historically marginalised to romanticised and idealised today.
The romanticised constructions of indigenous peoples and children may have a
negative impact on rights protection, and may moreover lead to a lack of critical
scientific analysis. Desmet challenges these essentialising tendencies and calls for
an increase in efforts ‘to unveil assumptions and constructions that essentialise
indigenous peoples and children, as well as the impact of these constructions on
research, policy and practice’ (see Chapter 7).
Thirdly, notions of consultation and consent are legally well developed in the
field of indigenous peoples’ rights. Indigenous peoples’ rights can inspire
children’s rights law in furthering the theoretical, legal and practical development
of the collective dimension of the right of children to be heard (including aspects
of representation), and in fleshing out the attributes of the emerging right of
children to consent (namely free, prior and informed).
Rights of older persons

The field of rights of older persons is the only one where intersectionality is
excluded: children can never belong to this category while being children.
Moreover, the codification of the human rights of older persons is still in a rather
early stage (no treaty has as yet been adopted), which may explain why the
question of inspiration is more prominently in the reverse direction, i.e. which
learning points does the CRC contain for the rights of older persons. In Chapter
8, Habbig, Hoefmans and De Hert suggest three points of inspiration. First of
all, the paradigm shift that we discussed earlier (from vulnerability to autonomy),
although not fully realised in the CRC, is clearly also relevant to address the
stereotypes associated with ageing. Moreover, and typical of the CRC, the use
of principles in addition to rights is believed to be a good practice. Thirdly,
the concept of evolving capacities and the retreating role of parents or other
carers may be of relevance to the rights of older persons, although it cannot be
simply transplanted: whereas children gradually develop ‘towards full capability
in decision-making, older persons often see a reverse development’. But the
key questions are similar: how to balance and facilitate as much autonomy as
possible while dependence increases? And how to define the evolving role,
responsibilities and obligations of informal and formal carers?
Children’s rights may learn from the older persons’ rights regime, as they could
from the indigenous peoples’ rights regime, how to use a more variable age limit:
whether a person is labelled as ‘aged’, ‘old’ or ‘elderly’ depends on the cultural
context, economic considerations and the respective life expectancy, and such a
more open-ended approach could be beneficial for children’s rights too.
Although it is too early to tell, the authors express the hope that if the older
persons’ rights regime ‘strikes the right balance between protection and
emancipation, this could be an argument to look more closely at the parallel debate
in children’s human rights law’, in particular with regard to the right to work.
Finally, age-based discrimination has been developed within the older persons’
rights regime, but remains by and large a blind spot in children’s rights law.
The prohibited ground of age is conceptually not yet well developed in children’s
human rights law, and may benefit from developments within the older persons’
rights regime.
In sum, all five regimes are part of a struggle for emancipation. Women’s rights
and disability rights seem to have been most successful in introducing a paradigm
shift, away from protectionism to a better acknowledgement of autonomy.
Authors disagree, however, whether children’s rights should make a similar shift,
towards recognition of full capacity of children, and a supported decision-making
model, as one reading of disability rights suggests. Disability rights may also be
most inspirational in intertwining civil and political rights, and economic, social
and cultural rights, and hence in imposing immediate obligations with regard to
economic, social and cultural rights. Indigenous peoples’ rights and rights of
older persons have adopted a flexible notion of the category concerned, which
may inspire children’s rights to move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach to the
upper limit of 18. Finally, more explicit engagement with age discrimination may
sophisticate the children’s rights regime.
Situating children’s human rights vis-à-vis general human

rights in concrete contexts
In the third part of the book, the chapter authors focus on a thematic area to
examine the interplay between children’s rights law and human rights law. They
describe the state of affairs as to the relation between children’s rights law and
human rights law in the particular thematic area. More specifically, they look for
signs that mark this relationship as one of ‘isolation’, ‘inspiration’ or ‘integration’.
In the concrete reality of a specific field, does it seem that children’s rights law
impacts upon general human rights law or vice versa? In addition to these analytical
questions, authors were also asked to ponder some normative questions: what are
promising or desirable avenues for further development of the role of children’s
human rights law vis-à-vis general human rights law in this thematic issue? Should
there be isolation, inspiration or integration and, if so, how?
The thematic areas that are examined in this manner are family relations
(Chapter 9), LGBTQI marginalisation (Chapter 10), undocumented migration
(Chapter 11), media (Chapter 12), environmental protection (Chapter 13) and
corporate responsibility for human rights (Chapter 14). From a normative point
of view, all the chapters argue in favour of increased inspiration or integration
between children’s human rights and other fields of human rights law, with some
stating that children’s human rights should borrow certain elements from other
human rights fields, and others claiming that other fields would do well to learn
from developments in children’s human rights law or to include a focus on
children’s rights in future normative development.
Enriching children’s rights with insights and concerns from other

human rights fields
Focusing on the family sphere, Titia Loenen examines (in Chapter 9) how much
credit the CEDAW and CRC give to each other in this sphere. Loenen is satisfied
that CEDAW provisions pay adequate attention to children’s rights through
explicit references to the ‘best interests of the child principle’. Yet she assesses the
limited attention to gender in the CRC, including in the work of the CRC
Committee, as insufficient. The CRC Committee is integrating a gender concern
by introducing a regular mention of the ‘girl child’. However, where parents are
concerned, the CRC Committee is generally mute on gender, and prefers the use
of gender-neutral language. Loenen draws our attention to the fact that challeng-
ing the gender stereotypes and gendered role patterns in the family holds a central
position in the CEDAW’s theory of change toward gender equality. Indeed, the
CEDAW Committee ‘links the gendered division of family roles with the overall
inferior position of women in society, their economic dependence, poverty and
lack of social, economic and political power’ (Chapter 9). For Loenen, the fact
that the CRC emphasises the shared responsibility of parents for the upbringing
of their children is not sufficient.
In addition, she states that the CRC Committee should explicitly address the
gendered dimensions of this shared responsibility. By recognising that women are
often the primary caretakers of children, the CRC could, according to Loenen,
contribute to the empowerment of women. At the same time, she notes that
where the CRC and its Committee do pay specific attention to parents’ gender,
i.e. in the context of motherhood as a biological function, this sometimes results
in the instrumentalisation of women, as their interests seem to be subordinated
to those of children. Interestingly, Loenen points at a procedural approach that
may be best practice in terms of human rights integration: the joint General
recommendation/General comment of the CEDAW Committee and the CRC
on harmful practices integrates a women’s rights approach and a children’s rights
approach in a manner that Loenen considers optimal.
Women’s rights and their focus on relations within the family are a long-
standing theme in human rights law, amongst other reasons because the adoption
of the CEDAW predates that of the CRC by a decade. Loenen’s argument is
therefore for the integration within children’s rights of the specialised knowledge
and experience of a mature specialised system and its expert body. On the other
hand, Ivana Isailovic’s chapter on children’s rights in relation to LGBTI margin-
alisation (Chapter 10) argues for the integration in children’s rights of novel rights
protection standards that have only partially gained full recognition in inter-
national law as binding standards. Indeed, one can imagine a future LGBTI
rights regime comparable to the specialised human rights regimes for women,
children, persons with disabilities, etc. However, for now, LGBTI rights as inter-
national human rights are found mostly in soft law and in the jurisprudence of
supranational monitoring bodies.
Isailovic points out that, on account of their initial focus on sexuality, LGBTI
rights have long been conceptualised as adult rights, and the emergence of
children in this landscape is a recent development. Until recently, children’s
rights have been mobilised mostly to counter LGBTI rights. Yet today, the CRC
Committee is starting to address LGBTI rights in its General Comments and
Concluding Observations. Isailovic’s central argument is that the CRC’s potential
to protect the rights of LGBTI children or children raised by LGBTI parents may
or may not be realised, depending on the willingness to embrace new interpretations
of CRC provisions. Such new interpretations would have to take into account soft
law such as the Yogyakarta Principles, as well as interpretations of other human
rights instruments that do justice to the experiences of LGBTI individuals.
Isailovic builds this argument through three cases: self-determination rights of
intersex children under Article 12 CRC, the interpretation of ‘the best interests
of the child’ (Article 3 CRC) in family life cases, and addressing bullying,
intimidation and negative stereotypes in the school context under Article 29 CRC.
Enriching other human rights fields with insights from or a focus on

children’s rights
The chapters by van Kalmthout on environmental rights (Chapter 13) and by
Erdem Türkelli on business and human rights (Chapter 14) likewise discuss
dynamic and highly topical fields of human rights law in which normative
development is still ongoing. However, unlike Isailovic, they argue not for the
integration of general human rights law developments into children’s rights, but
instead want children’s rights to be taken on board in the development of general
human rights law.
For Erdem Türkelli, this point of view is based on the finding that, in the area
of business and human rights, recent children’s rights (soft law) instruments have
been developed that have been strongly inspired by general soft law instruments
in this field. Indeed, both the Children’s Rights and Business Principles and the
General Comment 16 of the CRC Committee are heavily inspired by the UN
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP). What is more, the
CRC Committee’s General Comment goes further in that it corrects or ‘improves’
the UNGP from a children’s rights point of view. In that respect, one might argue
that what Isailovic would like to see happen in the field of LGBTI rights, i.e. the
reinterpretation of children’s rights in line with recent developments in a specific
field of general human rights, has in fact happened in the area of business
and human rights.
However, Erdem Türkelli deplores the fact that the operationalisation of both
frameworks takes place in isolation from one another. The main discussion – in
particular on a potential future binding treaty – takes place in the general human
rights framework, and ‘the momentum on children’s rights and business has not
yet been translated into a tangible integration of children’s rights into the broader
human rights discussions on transnational obligations in a meaningful way’ (see
Chapter 14). This is why she argues that the trend should now be reversed, and
that after the integration of business and human rights in the children’s rights
framework, children’s rights should now be integrated in the general human
rights frameworks addressing businesses.
In the field of environmental rights, discussed by Danielle van Kalmthout,
developments that may lead to the recognition of a binding human right to a
healthy environment, have so far not sufficiently included children’s specific
protection needs. Van Kalmthout therefore argues in favour of integrating
children’s needs and interests in these debates. However, contrary to Erdem
Türkelli, her vision is not one in which children’s rights would be incorporated in
a general instrument or provision. Instead, for van Kalmthout the integration
of children’s rights in the debates about a right to a healthy environment should
lead to the separate recognition – in the context of the CRC – of a child right to
a healthy environment in addition to a general right to the same. In her analysis
of the CRC, van Kalmthout identifies numerous provisions that have been
interpreted to include some aspects of a child’s right to a healthy environment
and/or that might be interpreted in a way that would help shape such a right. Yet
– and in this her position differs from that of Isailovic – she does not consider
reinterpretation a satisfactory solution.
Both Erdem Türkelli and van Kalmthout conceive of the integration of

children’s rights in general human rights as a way of providing better protection
for the human rights of children. Other authors have argued, however, that certain
interpretations that have been developed in the context of children’s rights may
serve as an inspiration to improve general human rights for all, including adults.
This line of argument is developed in the chapters on media and undocumented
migration.
In Chapter 12, Eva Lievens analyses in detail how the European and UN human
rights regimes approach children as consumers, participants and subjects of
the media. The combination of hard law, soft law and the interpretations
of supranational human rights bodies, results in a very sophisticated regime. Built
mainly on three CRC provisions (Articles 12, 13 and 17) it is a three-dimensional
approach, including protective measures, in addition to obligations to provide, as
well as an emphasis on participation. This is a much richer framework than the
general human rights framework that applies to adults in relation to the media,
and that includes mainly negative rights. Lievens therefore argues that adult rights
holders could benefit from enhanced human rights protection, if the children’s
rights regime on the media were to inspire the general human rights regime in
this field. In addition to positive state obligations, this would entail a right to
participate in media governance processes. Moreover, the multi-stakeholder
approach of children’s rights – conferring responsibilities not only on the state,
but also on parents and the media – could prove a useful model to concretise in
human rights terms the responsibilities of ‘third parties’ in the media sector, ‘such
as journalists, internet service providers, search engines or social network site
providers’ (see Chapter 12).
The analysis of Julie Ryngaert and Wouter Vandenhole of the use of
‘vulnerability’ concepts in the context of the rights of undocumented migrants
(see Chapter 11) likewise reveals the potential of sophisticated rights reasoning
that was developed for children’s rights, to have broader application. The concept
of vulnerability is mobilised in both children’s rights law and general human rights
law to single out individuals or groups that need enhanced protection or priority
treatment. In general human rights law, children are often considered more
vulnerable than adults in this context. The detailed analysis of Ryngaert and
Vandenhole shows that the vulnerability concept that is applied (although not
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
te branden stonden in rosse gloeiing, verzwevend en wisselend,
soms oplaaiend in dampend rood, dan verflauwend plots, met
opdoeming van schaduw-schimmen wonder-wild en fantomig uit
schemerstraatje. Telkens als smidsjongen trok, aan blaasbalg, ijlde
’n metaalgloed als brandende oker over de huisjeskrommingen, heet
roodgoud neerschroeiend op ’n vuil-kronkelig gangpoortje. En
telkens stapten menschen, nu donkere straatfiguren, uit
zijweggetjes, in den lichtgloed, als magisch éven beschenen, met
opglanzing fèl, van rooie koppen, lachend en satanisch, onbewust
[61]van hun rossige kleur-huivering, die wonder-diep en vizioenig
gezichten en handen, vergroeien liet in vreemd avond-goud; alles
rondom, dan plots donkerend verdween in zijweggetjes buiten
brand-kaatsing. Het verweerde poortje stond even dan in gloed, als
burcht-ingang, geheimzinnig vergroot, met achter zich, spitsen en
tinnen in duisteren glimsels. En van overal kropen in rosse schijnsels
de straatkrotjes bijéén, fel in vuurlijn afgestreept tusschen hevige
schaduwen op kei en grond, angstig en ontzaglijk van geheim-
kleurig duister.… Tot plots de smidse stil uithijgde en voor ’n poosje ’t
straatje weer te droef-schemeren lag, stil en nietig, met z’n vuile
mosdakige schemerdroeve krotjes.
Guurt kon niet afzien van den rossigen brand, die telkens op den
vuur-verwilderden kop van den smid vóórop uitschoot, als de balg
aan ’t laaien ging. Ze hoorde àchter ’t hok-raampje, het getemperde
geluid van z’n hameringen op de gloei-lichtende wielen en hoepels.
—Met pret in ’r, zag ze ’t vonke-sterren, de vuurspatten om de
donkere hoofden en rompen van andere werkers dans-kringen en
zweven, en alles weer heelemaal wegduisteren als de smidse tot
rust kwam. Dan zocht ze in den zwakken zwaveligen nastroom van
den gloed, hun hoofden, maar zag niets dan vage vormen van
travaille, wiel-bonken en donkere karbrokken, groote hoefbogen,
ijzerrommel en walsen, die als vergramd in de halve werkplaats-
duistering zwarten uitlijnden.—Vrouw Hassel zag niets, zat met ’r
donker hoofd maar te staren in schemerstraatje, tot plots
vlammengloed van overkant haar kwam bebloeden, en wilden angst
gaf aan ’r suffe hoofd met ’r magere hand aan d’r mond gekneld.
Guurtje, tegenover haar, in ros-gouën schijn, begloeid als in
tooverballet, het fijne hoofd, met die weeke trekken, als ’n Elsa,
omlicht alleen, het gezicht en haardos. En plots weer schimden de
vrouwenhoofden weg, met stilte tusschen de lichamen. ’t Was als ’n
visioen van monsterachtige leelijkheid en vreemde sage-fijne
schoonheid, dat koppenleven der vrouwen, weggezonken in het
diepe zwart van kamertjes-donkerte. En zwaar tikte achter het hout
beschot, door de stilte, de staartklok, [62]langzaam, als wou ze
telkens blijven staan. Tot plots weer, het raam in gloed òpschoot en
de lichtkoppen uit de droomrige donkering van ’t kamertje
opdoemden, het star-oogende, grauw-rossige bevende kakement,
met den vertrokken breeden angst-mond, bevende skelet-hand van
vrouw Hassel en de zoekende oogen volgevloeid van rood licht;
daartegenover het sage-grillige prachthoofd van Guurt, in magischen
haarbrand tegen de rosgouën raampjesruit, enkel hoofd en buste
met verdonkering van lijf. Telkens en telkens zoo, verzinking van
gezichten in donkre kamertjes-diepte, als de smidsevlam kromp, en
vaag de halfduistere smeden weer heel gewoon te zien waren,
peuterend onder kleine gasvlammetjes op donkere draaibanken.
Moeder Hassel was vandaag nog stiller dan anders, en toch kon ze
helderder iets afdenken.… Nu juist voelde ze haar vreeslijk leed,
zwaar alléén-leed, dat niemand van ’r begreep. Ze was altijd een
gezonde vrouw geweest en, hoewel nooit heel slim, toch zuinige
huismoeder. Tot ze, voor twee jaar inéén zoo’n rare knellende
verdoffing in ’t hoofd had gevoeld, alsof er kruisbanden om ’r schedel
gingen striemen en telkens gloeiingen er tusschen door, heete
opstijgingen van iets naar ’t hoofd. Zoo, inéén, was ze zenuwachtig
bang en huilerig geworden. En dan àlles vergeten, vergeten. Soms
had ze de grootste moeite om te weten wat er in haar eigen
huishouen omging. En niemand geloofde of begreep hoeveel smart
ze had, hoeveel pijniging en marteling. Guurt was ’n meid die alleen
aan d’r zelf dacht, dat voelde ze nog wel. En de jonges, ruwe
kwinkkwanken die ’r afbluften.… Maar haar man was de ergste. Die
was opschrikkend woest tegen ’r, duivelig, venijnig. Die porde en
mepte ’r veel, altijd in ’t geniep. Dan kneep ie, maar valsch-bang, dat
anderen iets merken zouden. En nou, wist ze zelf niet wat ’r met ’r
gebeuren ging. Meestal kon ze niets denken, was ’t ’r dik en zwaar in
’r hoofd, watterig en benauwd.… Zoo zat ze nou weer te mijmeren.…
Nou.… wa’ mos ze nou puur van denke?.… da ha je’t,.. kwait!.…

kwait.… [63]
Wá’ kwait.…? Nou, kwam ’t er niks opàn.… Ze kon nie.… nie.…?

wá’ nie?.… Main kristus.… Skande!.… skande.… wácht.… wá’ had
ze ’t nou over?.. Stil,.… da gong ’t weer.… weg.… gut.… ja.… wacht
nou há’ s’m.—Dá’ ze t’met niks onthouwe ken.… wacht se mos sich
nou moar puur inprate da’t van selvers betert gong.… Zoo te
mijmeren zat ze, met heete knelling in ’r doffe hersens, te grienen in
het donk’re kamerke, voelde ze weer drukkende neveligheid in ’t
hoofd, vergat ze weer wat ze zoo voor ’n paar tellen nog bedacht,
kwam er licht gesnik in ’r keel, maar dàt hield ze in, uit angst,
instinktief al, voor geschreeuw, wetend dat ze d’r uitscholden en
snauwden als ’t gemerkt werd. Toch zat ze altijd in angst. Ze wachtte
altijd achter, naast ’r, ’n roep, ’n krijsch, ’n stoot of woede-slag. Die
wachtte ze nòu, uit ’t donker op ’r suffe kop, zoo pàl op ’r af, dat ze
schrok als ’r heelemaal niets was en ze uit ’r doffe staar tot
herinnering kwam, èven heel kort. Maar dan kwam indommeling
weer, bewusteloos en toch hoorend, als even vóór den slaap. In die
suizelige dommeling bleef ze voelen knaag-smart van iets dat ze niet
begreep van’r zelf, vooruit wetend, dat ze toch alles weer vergeten
ging, dat alles er door verkeerd zou gaan, maar zij ’t niet verhelpen
kon. ’t Bangst was ze voor de snauw-giftige duwen van Guurt, en
nog banger voor de driftige venijnige uitbarstingen van den Ouë. Zoo
opgejaagd, niet wetend wat te doen, wachtte ze weer op nieuwe
snauwen, voelde ze grimmiger aandreiging van vreeslijke rampen,
zoo vlak tegen haar lijf. Dàt gevoel vergat ze weer als feit, maar
bleef dan nog in nawerkenden vagen weedom, angstig zenuw-
spannend, eng ingekerkerd tusschen angst-gevoelens, in ’r
grommen. In haar week-watterig-dichtgestopt hoofd, spande en
ònrustte ’t, als knaging van ’n woord dat men kent, maar dat niet wil
invallen, toch door de ooren klankt, brandend op tongepunt. Al ’n
paar jaar leefde ze in zoo’n martelende angst-spanning, zich erger,
benauwder voelend, van maand tot maand, duizeliger, en doezeliger
achter in ’t hoofd, al sterker vergetend, stommer smart uitsnikkend,
van dingen die ze niet wist te [64]zeggen. De dokter was er bij
geroepen, had hooge rekeningen gestuurd, drankjes, drankjes uit
eigen apotheek, zonder eind, ook de jonge arts werd er bij gehaald
en in potjeslatijn hadden ze uitgemaakt dat ze ’r beide niks van
snapten. Alleen de jongste mompelde iets van.… dementie.…
hersenverweeking.… Toen ouë Gerrit ’m vroeg, wat ’t was, had ie z’n
schouders opgehaald en alleen gezegd: „maar geduld hebben.” In
dien tijd had zij alle moeite gedaan om er van af te komen, zonder
drankjes. Want eerst dacht ze ook dat ’t aan haar zelf lag. Toen wou
ze, wou ze onthouen, iets dat ’r eenmaal inzat. Ze groef ’t in ’r hoofd,
metselde ’t in ’r geheugen, met drift. Dan begon ze te zweeten, te
zwellen in onrust, in benauwing en lag ze in stille worsteling met de
dingen die ze hoorde en wist.. Ja.. ja, nou had ze ’t nog.. ’t bleef.. ’t
bleef.. nog.. nòg!.. Maar dan, heel zachtjes, kwam er verslapping,
was ze vreemd-ver afgedwaald van wat ze moest, wilde weten, ging
’r de heele boel ontglippen.… Dan wist ze plots niet waarvoor ze zich
toch zoo inspande. Er begon raar, wezenloos gedoezel in ’r hoofd te
broeien, gedruk en iets heet-suizends kwam in ’r opstijgen.. Eindelijk
dofte alles uit, ontspande en dommelde tegelijk wèg haar wil; begon
weer dat stille smart-geknaag, zonder dat ze wist waarom. Plots dan,
in het duister van ’r indommelen hoorde ze ’n schreeuw, zag ’n
woedegezicht, rammelde ’n vloek boven ’r hoofd, drong ’n vuist op ’r
aan;—nou hoorde ze stemmen van ’r zoons, ’r man, dat ze dat weer
en dit weer vergeten had. Niks meer kon ze zich herinneren.—Alles
klonk weer nieuw voor haar, en kort, heel kort dan, begreep ze, dat
ze weer die dingen vergeten mòest hebben. Dàt pijnigde ’r erger.
Sterker drong bij tijen de angst op ’r aan wàt ze beginnen moest, als
dat zoo door ging. Onder hun hoon, hun schimp bleef ze radeloos,
staar-bleek voor zich uitzien als levenlooze, omdat ze niet zeggen
kòn, met geen woord, tegen die woedende gezichten, wàt er in ’r
gebeurde. In die oogenblikken, dat ze om ’r heen dreigden in woest
gekrijsch met woede-gebaar, voelde ze, onder haar eigen staren of
ze stikken ging, dichtsnoering van ’r keel, met net nog ’n heel klein
beetje [65]lucht om te ademen. Bij elk nieuw verwijt sidderde ze,
voelde ze in zich ’n angst van ’n rat die achter traliewerk wordt
opgejaagd, wou ze zich ergens aan vastgrijpen, waaraan ook.
Vanmiddag zat ze in ’r donker hoekje, stil schemeruurtje, rustiger,

nou ze geen verwijt-stemmen hoorde, veiliger zich voelend omdat ’r
duisternis om ’r heenlag. Vandaag was alles weer beter gegaan. Ze
had veel meer onthouden, voelde zich ook vrijer in ’t hoofd, ruimer,
en stiekem had ze zich voorgenomen af te zien van ’n nieuw
doktersbezoek, omdat van zelf de boel wel zou beteren. Heel even
blij zat ze in ’t donker, dat ze nou wat minder gespan om ’r schedel
voelde, dat ze weer veel gemaklijker op de namen van de menschen
kon komen, beter op ’t eten had gelet, weer veel van ’r huishouding
zag.
’n Adem-zware stemmings-stilte suisde door ’t warme achterend,

paffig-warm en pik-duister. De smidse stond stil aan overkant. Dirk
en Piet ronkten lichtelijk tegen muur-duister aan. Guurt zat roerloos,
denkende aan ’n stoeipartij met ’n paar heertjes van de sekretarie,
kale ventjes, die in hun heerige poenigheid diepen indruk op haar
maakten. In d’r berekend verzet tegen hààr rijke, waarop zij loerde,
die doodelijk van ’r was, had ze afspraakjes gemaakt, voor donkere
laantjes-wandelingen om de tuinderijen. Maar zij wist wat ze deed,
bleef zonder hartstocht. Ze zou zich daar niet te grabbel gooien,
zooals zooveel meiden van de plaats, voor en zonder geld. Alles
was fijn spel bij ’r, berekend op prikkeling, nou es naar de
Wierelandsche Harmonie, dàn naar de kemedie. Daarvoor gebruikte
ze àllen, loerend toch op één. Al was heel Wiereland nijdig op ’r,
scholden ze ’r uit voor scharrelaarster, ’t liet ’r koud, ze wist wat ze
deed.
Ouë Gerrit was uit den dorsch naar den stal gesjokkerd.
—Heé Guurt, ’t lampie!.… schreeuwde ie zwaar-hol uit den grooten

stal, ’t achterend in, waar z’n stem geweldig in het duister kamerke
stortte, tusschen de schemermenschen, in de pafrust. Gauw had
Guurt je ’n lampje op schouwrand boven den stalhaard geschoven,
haastig weer in ’t donker terugwijkend. Ze zat zoo lekker, zoo lekker
d’r kansen te berekenen. [66]De Ouë sukkelde en bonkte nog wat
aan den haard, die vlak bij den stal rookte, op steenmiddenwegje,
naar achterend. Met den vuurlepel rammelde ie dof en bonkend
tegen den beugel, waar boven, zwart verbrande buik van konkelpot
glimmerde.—Knetterend speelde er blauwig gevlam tusschen
takkenhout. Duister-ruim schemerde de stal, en ronde ruitjes, hoog,
als wilde oogen-sperring, in den bleekvuilen muur, staarden, nog
doorlatend schemer-avond van buiten, groenig schemerlicht dat in
valen schijn tegen de oograampjes opzweefde. In dàt licht, lijnden
nog even donker op, takkronkels, stronken en schors-bulten van
boomen op erf, bij brokken te zien door de starre-oogen van
raampjesrond, uitkrampend in avondlijk schemergroen.
Ouë Gerrit moest melken, de eenige vaste arbeid ’s avonds aan hem
overgelaten. Uit den duisteren hoogen dorsch, waar kouë vocht van
de hooge dak-welving afvloeide, donker en griezelig-vreemd, midden
in, hooiberg-gevaarte opsteeg, had ie luk-raak uit den hoek een arm
vol hooi gegrepen, op den tast, en het in den stal-voorgang onder de
donkere koe-koppen gesmeten. Ellendig vond ie ’t in den dorsch.
Daar was ie altijd onrustig, in die zwarte ruimtekilte. Dan was ’t
lekkerder in den broeiwarmen stal. Zware urinelucht en meststank
zoog er doorheen, met bijtenden ammoniakgeur, verzwevend door
het donker. Heel achteraan, in ’n hoek, stonden de twee koeien op
hoogtetje.—Guurt kwam brommend uit het donkere achterend, waar
de jongens nog ronkten, en moeder te suffen lag, het kleine
petroleumlampje nadragen.
Voorzichtig zette ze ’t neer op ronde raampjesrichel. Hol klonk

gestap van Guurt op steenen groep, en dof-schimmig onhoorbaar
sloop Hassel op z’n paars-wollen kousen, door de leegte, dwars
tusschen kleur-schimmige rempalen heen. Uitgestorven donkerde de
stal, die gebouwd was voor twintig koeien. Zooveel had ie ’r vroeger
bezeten. Nou maar, in verarming twee, die ie niet eens houen kon op
de wei.—
Dirk kwam loom uit ’t achterend, de stal in, gapen uitstootend die hol
vergalmden in de halve duistering. Met z’n handen, [67]diep
weggefrommeld in z’n groote zakken, bleef ie, lijzig koeiig kijkend,
om den Ouë heen en weer drentelen.
—Hâ je nog wà’ vangst op vailing Ouë, vroeg Dirk.
—Hoho!.… ho.… ho.… niks te meer.… smeer’ge boel.… allegaer

els.… saa’k moar segge.… els.… vier en vaif en nie g’nog.…
skorumsootje.…
—Zoo, bromde Dirk, zich uitrekkend, onder heviger

gaapuitstootingen.—Toen, kijkend naar de beesten, leunde ie tegen
den muur, onder het lampje, in geel-schemerig stallicht verdoezeld,
bij een van de oog-starende raampjes.
Guurt scharrelde rond bij de pomp, op steenen middenwegje, naast
den haard, klompklotsend. Ring.. ring.. ring.. ring.., stompte ’t uit
donkeren hoek daar, met knarsingen van overhalenden slinger
tusschen geweld-klettering van waterstroom in emmer. Even lichtte
rossig òp soms ’n hand, ’n brok gezicht, ’n rokpunt, als ze overbukte
dicht bij den haard. In den hoek, vóór de groep, schemerde ’t zwak-
geel lampschijnsel op koei-kruisen en schonken, die heuvelig
afschaduwden tegen beschot áán en op dwarsmuur, als
drommedarisbulten, vaal-zwart. In de stank-uitwasemende groep lag
koevuil te dampen, om den kruiwagen, die nog vol mest, beklonterd
achter de beesten, op achtergang stond. Plots viel er stilte, toen de
pomp uitgeklaterd had, en de dreunende ring-rings stomden. Overal
door den groot en hollen stal, ging kruip’rig schaduwspel over
steenen vloer en muurhoeken. De Ouë had eindelijk, lijzig, ’t
melkblok op de stalstoep gelegd. Zacht op de koebil patsend, schoof
ie ’t blok tusschen de warm-wasemende snoffelende dierlijven. In
licht vreugdegeloei dat zacht-bazuinig en weemoedig-zangerig
verhuilde in den stalschemer, draaide één koe d’r kop naar ’m toe,
zich loswringend van ’t touw dat vastgesnoerd zat aan de groen- en
blauw beverfde rempalen. Met z’n smoel duwde de andere koe, de
loeiende terug. Wolkerig woelde op ’t hooi, dat de beesten uit
vóórgang van den een naar den anderen kant trokken en scherp
sneed door de stilte, hun grissend grazen en kauwen, [68]hield soms
plots even op, druischte dan weer ààn, als vloeide ’t zeis-geruisch
van ’n maaier door ’t donker heen.
Lijzig nog bond de Ouë ’t spantouw om de achterpooten van ’t dier,

voor ie melken ging, en lijziger ging ie zitten op ’n melkblok, als ’n
stratenmaker op éénpootig krukje, met de melkketel tusschen z’n
knieën gekneld, èven òpgelicht, van zich af. Z’n handen eerst nat-
sabbelend in z’n mond kneep en trok ie tegelijk in maatgang aan de
spenen. Zacht-regenend in bleeke straaltjes, spoot sis-scherp ’t
melk-zoet den emmer in. Piet was ook ingeloopen, rugde naast Dirk
tegen den muur. Hij hield er van zoo na ’t melken ’n paar lauwe
glazen in te slaan. Daar loerde ie nu al op, gulzig maar stil. Dichter
had hij ’t lampje naar z’n vader geschoven. Het profiel van ouë Gerrit
kwam nu zwart-fijn en scherp op het inslinkende onderkruis van de
koe schaduwen, fijn boerenprofiel met lokkenhang, puntig, dat
lichtelijk mee-trilde met huid-siddering van koebeest. Maar telkens
doezelde schaduwprofiel weg, of verwrong in woeste karikatuur op
zwarte dijplekken tusschen huidwit in, als de Ouë, stram voorover
bukte op melkblok, naar andere uiers, den emmer in schuineren
stand knelde om de straaltjes beter te vangen. Dàn donkerde z’n
ingebogen lichaam schaduw-bevracht wèg, tusschen de zwak-
belichte schoften van het andere warme koebeest, dat tegen ’m
aangedrongen stond, zacht loeide, in wellust om ook gemolken te
worden.
—Wa bliksems mooie makelai hep ie tug, heé Ouë, stem-zong Piet.
—Oftie.… huhu.… huhu!.… dofte beklemd stem van Gerrit tusschen

flanken-inknelling van de beesten uit.—Onrustig bewoog de
wachtende koe z’n achterpooten, drong nauwer òp tegen den Ouë,
zacht zwiepend met staart, die opgebonden kronkelde, aan ’t
bindtouw. Urinelucht zoog zwaarder door den stal, en het koevuil
plompte vet en zwaar-dampend in de groep, vlak voor de kou-
uitrookende monden der loom-kijkende kerels.
Telkens vielen er bonkende geluiden in de stal-stilte uit het

achterend, en als de koeien met hun ringen schoven waarmee [69]ze
vastgetouwd snoerden aan rempaal, echo’de het gebonk doffer door
de licht-schemering.
Wemelende reuze-gestalten schaduwden door elkaar, toen de Ouë

opstond, strammig van z’n melkblok, z’n vette vuile vingers
beschuimd afdoopte in de ketels, Dirk en Piet vlak voor het lampje
elkaar over groep en achtergang speelsch-woest heentrokken.
Scherp-zwarte profielen, dàn klein omgetrokken en zuiver-gelijkend,
dan grof-vage, achteruit verbleekende monsterlijke boerentronies
onkenbaar, vervluchtigend ijl, op vuil-wittigen kalkmuur. Koppen
braken of zwollen, als de kerels in wilden stoei vooruitsprongen, in
vlakke, verdeukte schedelbobbels, tegen bruin-morsig beschot.
Groote neuzen, flauw, en zware goliath-handen, ijlden schimmig
over den wand, boven bultige silhouet-schonken van koe-beesten.
Zoo holde, warrelend en wemelend, een donker spel van schimmen
op vale muurbleekte, en de kerels zèlf, zwak-geel belicht, met
verduisterde tronies, grof-knuisterig, adem-ingeperst, hijgden uit, in
de stal-duistering, stoeiend over de dampende groep.
—Jullie làikt kinders, driftte midden in de Ouë,—neem jai mestkep

en kuil wat àn.… ’t loopt er ’tmet over.… eenmoal.… andermoal.
In de voorgang stond Piet te gichelen tegen Guurtje die zenuwachtig

haastig doende was in keuken en achterend.
—F’rslik je ’r nie an, Dirk.… de Ouë sòanikt.… hep puur tait tut
mur’ge.… nou.… mi stróói-oàfend!.…
Vlak op den kruiwagen liep ie aan, z’n adem, als gouën stoom, fel
beschenen door lamplichtstraaltje, tegen achterlijven van koeien
opblazend. Z’n gladde komieke kop rimpelde wreed en zijn mond,
donker open, boorde duistere schaterlachen, snorkend door den
stal. Een narocheling van lol, barstte z’n strot uit. Danserig sprong
weer z’n grof-komiekige boerentronie in scherp silhouet op vuilen
muur. Dirk bleef staan, lijzig, lachloos.
—Hep tait tut murrige, schaterde Piet weer, krullend met z’n lippen
als ’n nijdige aap.
—Daa’s net, terug-deunde met luie stem Dirk.

—Daa’s nèt, bauwde Piet na.… je suster.… [70]
Guurt was juist weer met pompstraal ringkinkend, ingedreund. En

weer holde Piet speelsch op Dirk aan, vlak bij ’t lampje springend,
dat z’n kop scherp-zwart weer troniede op den lichtschemermuur.
Plots gaf Dirk onder jolig geschater van Piet en Guurt, z’n broer ’n
fellen tik op z’n schoften, dat die woest achteruit sprong, met z’n
gezicht naar de stalraampjes, en z’n hoofd-silhouet weg-reusde als
angstige goliath-kop. Maar méé trok Dirk, die lui zich sleideren liet
met z’n beenen in mestvuil, naar ’t hoekje van Guurt toe, waar ze
zingend en lach-schaterend, bek-af, met geweld neerstommelden.
Guurt had aldoor èven gekeken, was met ’r hoofd, voorover bukkend
in boen en emmergeploeter, tegen blauw-rood van steenen
voorgang, soms net te zien geweest in zwak schijnsel, schimde dan
plots weg, klomp-klepperend naar keuken, om met nieuwen
boenrommel in ’r handen, weer den stal in te donkeren,—want ’t
liefst was ze bij lolligen Piet. Piet, ongedurig, jongen van negentien
met botten van rijpen kerel, wou alles aanraken, belollen.
Als ze niet werkten de kerels, zoo in den wintermiddag al, wisten ze

met hun leege handen geen raad. Dan stonden ze, uren achtereen,
te gapen, te rekken, te smoken, de lange winteravonden verzeurend,
tegemoet; avonden, die, als ze niet kaartten of dronken, slakkerig-
langzaam over hen heenkropen. Maar stoeilol kwam meestal los in
broeiend warmen stal, met dien prikkelenden ammoniak-geur, ’t
zoetige hooigeurige onder den heeten diepen stank van
uitwasemende dieren.
’t Was onbewust, alsof eigen natuurdrift losgromde, in geilen

vechtlust, als voor hen, de opene natuurlijkheid der koeien in vreten
en ontladen, zich schaamteloos opgulzigde en weer uitplompte.—
—Seg, skarreloarster, hai je t’met je vraier op sterk woater zet, ’k
hep ie sien.… f’rdomd.… met die blaike stadsmuil van ’t staa’thuijs.
—Daa’s jokkes, stem-gilde Guurt uit hoek-donkerte de stal in, onder

zwaar geboen, uit ’t duister te hooren, op rinkelige emmers. [71]
—F’rdomd.…
—Daa’s jokkes, ikke daan niks.… niks daan ’k.…
—Nou stuif nie soo.… jai hep-er t’met an ieder vinger ein..
—Tog hep-ie main nie sien.… jài nie—.. en niement nie..

schreeuwde Guurt, die nu met boender in d’r hand en losfladderende
haren van ’t bukken, naast Piet in scheem’ring kwam staan, één arm
in heup-zwaarte gedrukt. En hijg-zacht naar adem, woedde ze uit.…
—Neenet Pietje, dà’ hai je mis.… glad en al mis.… main sien

niement.… je sel Annie sien heppe.… daa’s puur ’n lekkere.… daa’s
’n kreng.… daa’s s’n kwinkkwanker.… mo je hoore.… nou binne se
in ’n f’raasderantie.… sel ’k moar segge.… en nou sait sain.… Nou
dat de Ouë.… die laileke suipert.…
—Dà’ kenne wai.… onderbrak Piet grimmig.… Maar Guurt vertelde

door, afgevend op ’r vriendin Annie. Piet keek telkens schuin naar
den Ouë en Dirk stond roerloos, vadsig, tegen den muur geleund.—
Guurt lach-praatte, telkens haar adem-stoom even beschenen, van ’t
donker hoekje uit naar schemeringslicht waarin Piet stond, opjagend
de kerels. Hol brokkelde haar hooge vrouwestem af, in wije,
klankende stalruimte, gelende schemerdiepte,waar de
woordplonsjes instortten, uit niet-zichtbaren menschenmond. Ze had
uitgerateld en Piet begon weer of ze niets gezegd had.
—Nou skarrel jai moar roak, se weite ’t.… je bint t’r ’n dunne!.… jai
mi je faine snuut.… Kaik, daa’s nou main weut! moar.… jai jài.…
kraigt nooit ’n man.… mit je witte lintjen goan jai de kist in.… beduuf’l
jai nog moar soveul.… jai knikkert mit je vraiers.…
—Dà’ lieg je.… heftigde Guurt weer, uit donker hoekje op ’m

afspringend van ’r bukkig hijgend geboen.
—Louw.… allegoar louw.… die tochtige maide.… an ieder vinger d’r

éin.… en allegoar moak je hullie dààs.… Jesis Dirk.… wa trek jai
roar smoel.… aas ’n bunsem op de sprenkel.… gierde Piet’s stem.
—Hait puur lol, bromde Dirk goeiig, onverschillig even [72]met z’n
schoften schurkend tegen den muur,.… suinigies an.… suinigies
àn.… goan se gangetje.… se gangetje.…
Ouë Gerrit was heelemaal klaar met melken, ’t viel ’m nog mee. Niks
meer noodig, voor se aige ’n paar kan, en de rest veur de venter.
Nou g’n zorg meer an z’n kop.… ’t potloodje zat er.… stilletjes.—
Twee koebeesten was genog, tege Maart moste ze tug weer weg.…
Met woede-woelingen boorden de koeien hun snoeten in ’t hooi,

zoekend naar lijnkoek, die komen moest. Dirk had er al ’n paar uit
den dorsch gehaald, waar ze half lagen te broeien naast de
voerbieten, op ’n berg. Vóór de drinkgang zat ouë Gerrit op z’n knie,
naast ’m ’t lampje, tusschen beschot en voor-loop, nauw
opgedrongen. De grillig vlekkerige koekoppen sloegen wilder hun
ringen tegen de rempalen dat ’t echo-bonkte. Zwaar-woest en gretig
stonden hun oogbollen, donker, vol lust, en van uit hun geketenden
neergedrukten stands wrongen de koppen zich òp, in wild geronk
besnuffelend de halfduistere handen van den Ouë.—
In brokken duwde ie de lijnkoeken in hun vadsige, lebberende

kwijlbekken, of liet ze vallen tusschen het hooi. Woelig omwolkten de
beesten dan den dorren stapel, in woest gesnuffel. Toen de koek op
was sneed de Ouë de bieten in groote blanke plakken, ze tusschen
het voer werpend. Gretiger gulzigden de donkere koppen in rauw-
raspend geslik. Lijf-wasem sloeg overal van de beesten af, en hun
bekken dampten zwaar. Vocht droppelde langs het beschot, warm-
broeiend, tot vèr van de dieren àf. Woest bleven ze omlekken de
donkere handen van den Ouë, die in z’n hoek, geknield, suffig ze zat
te bekijken, niet meer denkend om z’n beesten, alleen, stil-zalig, en
roezerig na-genietend, om wat ie weer zou te zien krijgen vannacht.
En nou, in die warmte, oog-soezend in ’t dunne licht-straaltje, viel ’m
ineen in, ’t heele tooneel. Hoe hij had gestaan, de notaris, en hoe
raak z’n greep was geweest, met al dat zand en die rotte bladeren.
Guurt kwam de melktesten aansjouwen, die in hun lichtig [73]glazuur,

steen-bruin glanzerden in het scheemrig lamplichtje. Sieperend
zeefde ze melk uit den ketel in de testen. Poesje, was zacht
aangeslopen en geestig-fijn, tast-sluipend met z’n kopje in de test,
bleef ’t in drinkbuiging, zacht ingehouen, met z’n bedonsde pootjes
op testrand staan, schuchter, terugkrimpend in z’n blank poes-dons,
bij elk stal-geluid, bàng dat ze ’m snappen zouen in z’n snoep. En
fijner nu, herhaalde ’t z’n snoep-beweeg, vlak bij het lampje dat op
steenen kleurgrond lichtte. Fijner schaduwde z’n kopjes-rond,
snorlijntjes en punt-oortjes tegen beschot, en in schuchteren snoep-
stand, boog méé, scherp zwart silhouetje, gratielijk met staart en
sluippootjes.
[Inhoud]
III.
Het half-zesje stond klaar in de woonkamer. Vrouw Hassel en Guurt
hadden hompen brood met kaas en roggebrood, zoo maar, op kale
tafel klaar gesneden. De koffie stond te bakken op petroleumlichtje
dat knepperde en stonk. Zwaar stoelgestommel rumoerde voor allen
rustig zaten en gebeden hadden. Met handpalmen verkreukten en
trokken ze hun brood af. Moeder Hassel schonk koffie.… koffie was
haar eenige troost. De dokter had gezegd, dat ze ’t niet moest
drinken, maar ze vergat ’t. Vroeger al had haar hevige
drinkhartstocht elk bezwaar overrompeld. Ze mòest drinken. Den
heelen dag dronk ze, dronk ze, spoelde ze iets weg in ’r, door dien
heet-zoetigen smaak. Wel dertig kommetjes sloeg ze in. Dat was ’t
eenige dat ’r staande hield, en ’r verdriet verdoofde. Daarom stond ’t
wit-steenen koffiepotje, koud en bruin-besopt aan alle kanten, roetig-
ingebrand bij den bodem, den heelen dag op ’t stinkende
petroleumpitje. Bakken mòest ze. Water bij eerste treksel, water bij
tweede treksel, al slapper, valer, viezer sop, klonteriger en grondiger;
daarop weer nieuw gedrop. Zoo klieterde heel Wiereland bij de
koffie. Overal in de tuinders- en werkmanskrotjes stonden de
bemorste petroleumstelletjes, duffig en roetig-vies; stond vaal-bruin
blad met grauw-steenen kopjes, [74]uitgeschulpt en bepuist, naast ’n
nikkel komfoortje, vuil-verbrand of pracht-blinkend.
—Skenk main nog wa’ leut, snorkte Piet tegen Guurt, met ’n bons z’n
kopje op tafel dreunend.
—Nou, lachte Guurt, jai hep t’met ’n dam lait.… se kenne d’r puur ’n
spaiker op je moag glaikkloppe.… wat ’n pens!..
—Kaik die, waa’t hekkepunter.… wat ’n bemoeial, sou je d’r nie ’n

druil om d’r hoet ketse?.…
Vlug, lacherig nog om Piet’s vraatzucht, schonk Guurt in. Stil

gesmak zoog door ’t kamerke, dat sufte in z’n dof-geel lamp-
schijnsel, waarin de staartklok alléén, met z’n koperslagwerk, zacht
òpglimmerde in lichte, schichtige glans-veegjes. Telkens nog
bonkten ringrukken van de koeien uit den stal, of het snikken even
van ’n herkauwende, zuchtte tegen de half-opene kamerdeur. Bij
nieuwe broodhompen sperden wijer open de kaken, lebberden de
monden, lui en vadsig in de broeiige kachel-warmte en loom tiktakte
de friesche, met iets van winterigen slaaplust in z’n slingergang.
Vrouw Hassel zat jammerlijk stil en verlaten te kijk-suffen onder het

scheefhangende lampje, met z’n geel-rood vuil vlammetje en
naargeestig schijnsel. Half afgezakt van haar stoel zat ze, in ’r vettig
bruinige huisjapon, die bochelde op ’r rug. Haar afgeleefd
rimpelgezicht leek grauw-zwart. D’r grijzig groezel-haar, dat flodderig
los uitslonsde onder de smerige, bij de ooren gepunt-kruide
steekmuts, die schedel-naakte gleuven door het gaas schemeren
liet, overhuifde zwaar en donker ’r klein monsterlijk gezicht. Telkens
gulzigde ze ’n slok koffie in, dat ’r magere keelkrop er van natrilde en
beet dan weer op de punt van ’r vettig schortje.
Tranen pinkelden plots in ’r brandende oogen die gloeiden, alsof er

kalk ingewaaid was. Om ’r breed-dunnen kwijl-mond, waar op
afzakte, pappig wangvleesch, dat als los vel zwabberde op
kakement, in teistering doorgroefd, doolden trekken van
verlammenden angst, spanning om te willen volgen wat om ’r heen
gebeurde, vast te houen wat ze dof hoorde. [75]Even na ’t
schemeruur hadden ze d’r weer geknauwd, waren, ze ’r weer op ’t lijf
gevallen met vergeet-dingen.
En Guurt had ’t hardst meegekrijscht, blind voor d’r smart, zelf zich
lekker, sterk, frisch, jong voelend. Nou was vrouw Hassel weer uit
haar beetje opgeleefde vreugd gestooten. In één zag, hoorde ze
weer alles veel slechter, vatte ze niets, ging ’r ’n lijm’rige verbinding
van woorden door ’t hoofd, suizelde en spande ’t overal in ’r, hoorde
ze geruisch, verdoffend om ’r héén, van stemmen en àldoor
achteréén, fluiterig gegil door de hersens diep in ’r ooren. En telkens
slokte ze gulziger ’r koffie-vocht lekker, warm, smakkend en
opzuigend de zoetige vuilheid, die ’r niks zei, niks verweet, niet aan ’t
schrikken maakte.
Paf-rust loomde ’r weer in ’t kamerke, waarin de dingen, boers-knus

aanglinsterden. Klein-stijf stond in ’n dwarshoek, schuintjes, ’n
pronkschoorsteentje, zelf-getimmerd plankje, omspannen met
vaalrood lapje, koper-bepend. Om de lakzwarte glimkachel lag
morsvuil, ingetrapt kolengruis en ’t plaatje dofte blikkig. Glanzerig
van politoer-lichtvleksel, in rood-bruine gladheid stond er tegenover
mahoniehout linnenkastje, parmantig-stijf, op klein-breed poot werk,
aan hoeken versierd met poppetjes-spul, fel-kleurig steen, en tegen
het blom-grof, geel behang, hingen los-opgehaarspelde gore
haarwerkjes en kleur-stervende chromo’s, koningen met pelzen en
Zwitsersch meer-blauwsel. Alles bakte en loomde ’r vergeten in
boerenknusheid. De grof-rooie stoelen, met hevig geel bies-
streepsel stonden te drenzen in den doffen lampschijn. Alleen de
kwikzilverige vaasjes, buikig-rustig, op het mahonie-kastje,
vroolijkten met breed-mondige lichtstreepjes. Naast de kachel,
achter vuilen kolenbak, pronkte rijk-ongedeerd, koperen standaard,
met schep, koperen tang en pook, sierlijk gebogen en zacht-
beflonkerd, smetteloos voornaam lachend tegen den vuil-roetigen
pook die ernaast op ’n stoel lag. In ’n anderen hoek van laag-
balkend kamerke wemelde ’t van portretten, op klein tafeltje met
goor-stijf-krullig haakwerk belooperd. En vlak achter vrouw Hassel
donkerde ’n korf met tortelduifje, dat uit z’n beduisterd kamerhoekje
klagelijk koekeroede. [76]
Tusschen stemgepraat en eetgesmak, bij stilte-poozen,

weemoedigde ’t duifje, uit ’t licht geschoven, in z’n korfje, op ’n
voetstuk van gebroken bloemstandaardje, dat sidderde als ’t diertje
sprong. Zacht klagelijk koekeroede z’n zwel-kropje, als ’n kindje, dat
ergens ver, zacht te schreien en te snikken lag. Plots trok Guurt ’t
meer in den lichtkring, toen ’t juist, wil-venijnig zich-zelf in z’n
veertjes zat te snavelen, hals verdraaiend diep. Bij ’t geschuif, plots
vooruit, in ’t licht nu, dat z’n korfje inschemerde, dook z’n kopje
onder de veeren weg, begon ie stil te loeren voor zich uit, stil, als
luisterend naar wat gezegd werd door Guurt. Dan weer keek ie bijzij
àf met z’n donkere karmijn-oogjes, die kniploos stonden, staàr, stil.
In één weer kropte dan, uit teeder donsborstje klagelijk
kindergekreun, heel zacht en als van ver, koekeroekoe,
koekeroekoe, melancholiek in de paffende, scheemrige kamerke-
rust. Guurt, met dikken vinger, krauwde z’n nekje, door korf-tralie
heen onder staal-blauw glans-kraagje vol violette weerschijntjes en
groenige schubbetjes. En geestig, onder ’t krauwen, vonkten donker,
z’n rooie gloed-oogjes van lekkerheid, ging dommig-dwars z’n teer
kopje als om te luisteren, weemoedden weer z’n koekeroe’s klagelijk
kamerke in.
Plots gaf Guurt ’t korfje weer ’n duw achteruit, dat tortelduifje

wegdonkerde in ’n hoek, en schrik in z’n wijnrooie oogjes stolde.
Ouë Gerrit had Guurt wat gevraagd, die lijmerend onverstaanbaar
antwoordde met vollen mond.
—Nou joa.… sel ’k moar segge.… fa’n koniggin Fillemientje.… hai je

nog wat lese kenne.… eenmoal.… andermoal.…
Klank van groote onderdanigheid was er in z’n stem gaan beven, en

met vreemd-rilligen eerbied sprak ie den naam van Wilhelmina uit.
Dirk schoof stil Guurt z’n koppie toe.—Kijkend naar d’r vader, schonk
ze gedachteloos in, gansch bevangen door het denken aan de rijke
almachtige koningin.…
—Hée doedelsak, lachte Piet, haar tegen den arm stootend, genog,
je skinkt t’r snof’rjenne noast.…
—Aa’s se nouw t’met trouwe goat Ouë, schokkerde Guurt, [77]alsof
ze niets gehoord had, door,.… aa’s sai nouw trouwe goat de
koniggin.… hep sai dan d’r femilje.… en magge die d’r na kaike?.…
Ouë Gerrit schaamde zich altijd ’n beetje voor de groote kerels en

z’n meid dat ie d’r niks van wist, en dat tie nie lezen kon. Brutaal,
lukraak stootte ie ’r maar uit:
—Wel joa.… sel d’r ommirs puur niks.… skele kenne.. dà moak niks,
loa se kaike!.… je hep ’r ven dit.… en ven dàt.… op soo’n dag.…
hoho.… ho.… se komme uit de hooge!.… sel ’k moar segge.… en
mit hoarlie pakkies àn.… afain.… fiere en vaife en nie genog.…
enne.…
—Nou joa, hield Guurt vol, die nog niets wijzer was.
—Toe maid, gromde Dirk, die nauwelijks wist dat ’r ’n koningin

bestond, skenk in, je skenkt t’r noast.…
—Nee, jokkes, verdedigde Guurt, maar nog niet loslatend haar

vader:
—Moar .… enne.… nou.… aas d’r puur hooge.…
—Kaik tug veur je.… doedelsak, je skenkt op main poote, helhoak.…
—Main kristus, waâ jokkes.…
—Nou grinnikte Piet, skeelt t’met gain koe.… skeelt t’met gain koe.
—Jesses wà’ kerels.… wa hep jai smoor in.… en jullie.. jullie.… wete
d’r ook gain snars van.… weet jai ’t moeder?.…
Ze schrok op, vrouw Hassel. Niemand vroeg haar ooit wat over zulk
soort dingen.
—Gut.… schokte ze stemhaperend.… da wee’k nie.… al t’met.…
Schuw brak ze af, gejaagd, want nou, waarachtig, nou wist ze niet
eens meer waarover ’t ging, wàt Guurt gevraagd had. Haar leerig
gezichtsvel fronste samen in monsterlijke rimpeling, en haar grijs-
grauwe brauwen dottigden krampend. Vergeten, vergeten, smartte ’t
stil in ’r, met ’n snikhuil, maar uiterlijk bleef schrei-loos haar gelaat.
Alleen lichtelijk sidderden haar kaken. Plots sprong Dirk woest op,
bonkte z’n [78]stoel tegen den muur dat duifkorfje trilde en vrouw
Hassel opschokte van ’r zitje.
Met rumoer ging ie den stal in, achteruit op straat. Guurt was gretig
in Wierelandsch krantje gaan koekeloeren of ze ook iets van de
koningin lezen kon, van wie ze boven haar slaapstoel twintig
beeltenissen had hangen, in al andere standen en leeftijden. In ’r
egoïstische voorstellingen, waan-zeker en achterhoeksch-bedompt,
wemelde ’t van licht, goud en juweel, als ze aan de koningin dacht.
En hoog, op ’r verheven stoel zag ze Wilhelmientje zitten. Van de
kranten-berichten begreep ze niet veel; uit ’n behoorlijken zin kon ze
juist niet wijs worden.… Als t’r zoo stond, in die deftige krantentaal,
voelde ze zich kregel, ’t verwarde hààr voorstellingen, want die
alleen leefden voor haar. ’n Paar dingen maar, licht, juweelen en
goud, overal goud en ’n hooge stoel, ’n troon,—dat alles omgedraaid
en omgedraaid in allerlei variaties, bedacht en bekeken met haar
achterhoekschen weelde-hartstocht, dat ’t sterde en fonkelde voor
d’r oogen. En nou die kranten! Maar half lezen had ze geleerd. Dirk
voelde heelemaal niets voor ’t feest; wist niet eens waar Den Haag
lag. Toch zou ze doorlezen. Knusserig schonk ze zich nog ’n kopje
leut in, en naast ’r, schoof bevend-gulzig, de blauw-doorpeeste
grauwige beef-hand van ’r moeder, die ook weer hebben wou. Plots
kwam Dirk weer in, plompte zich weer neer bij de kachel. Guurt
frommelde ’t krantje op zij. Niks snapte ze ’r van. De Ouë zat met
ingezakt lijf in z’n op schoot gedrukt en tabakspot te morrelen,

PDF Children S Rights Law in The Global Human Rights Landscape Isolation Inspiration Integration Eva Brems Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF Children S Rights Law in The Global Human Rights Landscape Isolation Inspiration Integration Eva Brems Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Children s Rights Law in the Global

Human Rights Landscape Isolation

International Human Rights Law Daniel Moeckli

The Idea of International Human Rights Law Steven

Human Rights in China A Social Practice in the Shadows

Reconciling Law and Morality in Human Rights Discourse:

The Prevention of Gross Human Rights Violations Under

Paradigms of international human rights law 1st Edition

Regionalizing Global Human Rights Norms in Southeast

Tracing the Roles of Soft Law in Human Rights 1st

Eva Brems is professor at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University,

Available titles in this series include:

Resolving Conflicts between Human Rights

Human Rights Education and the Politics of Knowledge

The Istanbul Convention, Domestic Violence and Human Rights

Children’s Rights Law in the Global Human Rights Landscape

The Protection of Vulnerable Groups under International Human

Forthcoming titles in this series include:

Freedom of Expression and Religious Hate Speech

The Right to Food

Business and Human Rights in Africa

Patents Act 1988.

ISBN: 9781138639010 (hbk)

Children’s rights law and human rights law:

1 Distinctive characteristics of children’s human rights law 21

2 The broader relevance of features of children’s rights law:

3 The four general principles of the United Nations

4 The inclusion of ‘third parties’: the status of parenthood

5 Lessons for children’s rights from women’s rights?

6 Lessons for children’s rights from disability rights? 109

7 Inspiration for children’s rights from indigenous

9 Towards an integrated approach to intra-family relations

10 Children’s rights and LGBTI persons’ rights: some

11 Undocumented migration: integrating the children’s

12 Children’s rights and media: imperfect but inspirational 231

14 Children’s rights in business and human rights: from the

Dr Bronagh Byrne is a lecturer in Social Policy at Queen’s University Belfast.

Paul De Hert is full-time professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB),

Her doctoral research is on the children’s rights obligations of corporate

trafficking, privacy, hate crime and non-discrimination issues and subsequently

Prof Dr M L P (Titia) Loenen is professor of human rights and diversity

cratisation, and a PhD in promotion and protection of children’s rights. She

Inspiring other human rights regimes

Vandenhole identifies and examines five allegedly distinctive characteristics of the

(eight) – ‘so all-encompassing that they become dilutionary’ – which risks

distinctiveness of the concept. Moreover, Stalford cautions that broadening

Inclusion of third parties

Learning from other categorical human rights regimes

Rights of persons with disabilities

Indigenous peoples’ rights

Rights of older persons

Situating children’s human rights vis-à-vis general human

Enriching children’s rights with insights and concerns from other

Enriching other human rights fields with insights from or a focus on

Both Erdem Türkelli and van Kalmthout conceive of the integration of

Nou.… wa’ mos ze nou puur van denke?.… da ha je’t,.. kwait!.…

Wá’ kwait.…? Nou, kwam ’t er niks opàn.… Ze kon nie.… nie.…?

Vanmiddag zat ze in ’r donker hoekje, stil schemeruurtje, rustiger,

’n Adem-zware stemmings-stilte suisde door ’t warme achterend,

—Heé Guurt, ’t lampie!.… schreeuwde ie zwaar-hol uit den grooten

Voorzichtig zette ze ’t neer op ronde raampjesrichel. Hol klonk

—Hâ je nog wà’ vangst op vailing Ouë, vroeg Dirk.

—Hoho!.… ho.… ho.… niks te meer.… smeer’ge boel.… allegaer